The High Court has upheld a divorce decree and financial orders made by the Circuit Family Court after the husband appealed, finding he had not established that he could not meet the obligations imposed on him.
Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell delivered the judgment on 8 February 2024 after a de novo hearing, in which the appellant bore the burden of proof. Although the appeal was framed against all the Circuit Court orders, the husband did not contest the orders on custody, care, control and access. The appeal principally concerned financial provision, including his claim that rising interest costs on property loans made the existing arrangements unaffordable.
The court accepted that the cost of servicing the loans had risen substantially and that the husband faced financial hardship. But the judge found his evidence about rental income, cash payments from tenants and transactions involving his parents was unclear and not credible in material respects. The court was satisfied that he had received undisclosed cash from rents and had not provided a full account of his available resources. It also found the respondent’s resources were precarious and that her care responsibilities for the younger child left her with no reasonable prospect of employment for the foreseeable future.
The younger child has significant additional needs, including diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder and global developmental delay. The judge found the respondent had borne almost the entire burden of caring for the children and that moving from the adapted family home would be contrary to the younger child’s welfare. The court concluded that reducing maintenance would place an intolerable burden on the respondent.
The High Court affirmed the divorce decree and the unchallenged child-related orders. It ordered the appellant to pay the respondent €100 a week indefinitely and €120 a week for each child, subject to different end points: the older child’s maintenance continues until majority, with half of eligible college fees payable if he attends third-level education without grants or financial aid; the younger child’s payment continues until he becomes eligible for disability allowance or an equivalent statutory payment.
The family home is to be placed on the market on 1 June 2031, with net proceeds paid to the respondent after sale costs and any mortgage or charge are discharged. The parties may agree in writing to an earlier sale. Until sale, the appellant must pay the mortgage, related protection policy, insurance and local property tax. The respondent has the exclusive right to live there while she occupies it. The court also directed that half the appellant’s retirement benefit and all of the contingency be transferred to the respondent, and that neither party may seek provision from the other’s estate on death under section 18(10).
The appellant remains free to deal with his other properties. Further applications, apart from finalising the appeal orders, are to be made to the Circuit Family Court. The High Court listed the matter for 8 March 2024 to address the form of the order and said it was provisionally of the view that there should be no order as to costs.